killeen@topaz.decus.org (04/26/91)
D E C U S - I N T E R O F F I C E M E M O R A N D U M
Date: 25-Apr-1991 09:26pm EST
From: Dennis N. Clark
CLARK
Dept: board of directors
Tel No: 6155767384w 3769752h
TO: Jeff Killeen ( KILLEEN )
Subject: your vote
Doc Number: 009462
A great deal of false information regarding the ADL recommendations is
being distributed to DECUS leaders. The sheer volume of material precludes
an attempt to refute all of the misinformation. Here then, are some
facts for you to consider when you decide how you would like your society
to operate.
The Board of directors unanimously recommended that the Arthur D. Little
company survey the US Chapter of DECUS to check its state of health.
ADL interviewded over 600 DECUS leaders. ADL concluded from those
interviews that the current structure of DECUS creates an adversarial
relation among its leaders and that the structure should be changed to
engender closer communication between the board and other groups.
The suggestion was to meld the Management Council and the Board into one
group in order to facilitate communication.
Since then, the board has consistently been divided 7/2 in favor of the ADL
recommendations with the two dissenting votes coming from the Board
Directors who represent the Management Council.
A great number of personal attacks have created an emotional atmosphere which
obscures the issues themselves. Please carefully consider facts rather
than personalities when you make your decision on how you wish to
have your society operate.
Sincerely,
Dennis Clark Board of Directors memberkilleen@topaz.decus.org (04/26/91)
I N T E R O F F I C E M E M O R A N D U M
Date: 25-Apr-1991 10:51pm EST
From: Joseph A. Pollizzi, III
POLLIZZI
Dept: L&T SIG Chair
Tel No: 301-338-8609
TO: Dennis N. Clark ( CLARK )
Subject: RE: your vote
Doc Number: 009476
Dennis,
I'm intrigued that you addressed this to me, individually. I would find
it unlikely that you would only send this to me - so I must assume that
you are sending it one-by-one to the entire leadership. Impressive.
Unfortunately you are drawing the wrong conclusions about why so many of us
are against the proposal. You are making the same mistake that the Board
has continued to make in this entire process. Why are you all so blind to
it???
Being one of those who has gone public with a dissenting opinion, I
speak for myself - but I know that my reasons are shared by many others.
And frankly, please give us some credit for seeing through the personalities
conflicts and inuendo that so fueled the whole fire.
Most of the leadership (I believe) does feel that change is required.
What we object to is the caviler attitude that the "BOARD" speaks for the
leadership in how and when its wants this change to come about! From my
view, the Board has disenfranchised me as a leader. It has sought by
going to an uncommitted and ill-informed membership body to seek an
organizational change that "The Board" wants without a clear commitment
from the body of the leadership.
Dennis, I'm about as a-political as you get, but the very actions and
time-table set by the Board in this affair have managed to anger even me.
I was holding out to see if the Board would act in a rational manner and
at least wait until after the New Board was convened before pursuing
the change. But alas, that course was not taken and as I had promised in
my lengthy dissension to Mike Terrazas and cc'd to Sam Whidden (remember the
infamous Brown TF that reported how there were no "significant" objections
to the change...) I will do everything in my power to defeat this action.
What pains me even more have been the actions of the Board as our
"supposed" senior leaders. It was bad enough to see the personality clashes
between certain individuals - but I can't understand why the rest of the
Board did not act to serve as mediators or to find a neutral 3rd party to
mediate between the warring sides so that the dispute didn't spill out to
the whole society. The Board, as individual members, failed to meet their
obligations to the Society's leadership either by their direct actions or
inactions in this whole process. You, yourself, will have to honestly
assess - how much better off would the Society be if such a heated and
uncontained "discussion" occurred in an expanded Board that was now directly
responsible for all of the Units' activities?
Sorry Dennis, so much could have been accomplished with just a little
more time and a little more thought. But now we'll have to see what's
left of the Society in the wake of the battle that didn't have to be.
Joe